• We will be taking the forum down for maintenance at [3:30 PM CDT] - in 25 minutes. We should be down less than 1 hour.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2019 set to be warmer than 2018

Jack Hays said:
If there's no El Nino then 2019 will continue the cooling trend since 2016. I wonder whether weakened solar input has anything to do with the apparent fading away of the projected El Nino?

[FONT="][URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/is-the-forecasted-el-nino-for-this-year-is-fading-away-it-sure-looks-that-way/"]
anomnight.current.small1_.gif
[/URL][/FONT]
[h=1]Is the forecasted El Niño for this year fading away? It sure looks that way.[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]In late 2018, there were some predictions that there would be a significant El Niño event in 2019. There were strong hints of an El Niño event in both SST data and forecasts. In an April 6th 2018 essay, Bob Tisdale suggested “Looks like one may be forming right now.” But if we look at…[/FONT]
[/FONT][/COLOR]
[URL="https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/is-the-forecasted-el-nino-for-this-year-is-fading-away-it-sure-looks-that-way/"]Continue reading →[/URL]
Click to expand...


No El Nino; good.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your memory is faulty. I never said that.
Click to expand...

I agree. I remember something said about isotopes, and I would have remembered if you said that.
 
Surface Detail said:
How is it possible to answer a question that doesn't make sense?
Click to expand...

I could have stated that better.

Point is, the values are modeled, and many have error bands in excess of 50%. Two significant digits doesn't allow for more than a 10% error.
 
I saw this tweet today, written by one of the lead authors of the IPCC WG1, and laughed.

I’m guessing the ‘old dude who was an engineer in an unrelated field’ phenomenon extends much farther than LoP and Longview. Must be a specific conservative/libertarian pathology combined with engineering training

Twitter
 
Lord of Planar said:
I could have stated that better.

Point is, the values are modeled, and many have error bands in excess of 50%. Two significant digits doesn't allow for more than a 10% error.
Click to expand...

Show your link!!!! You never do. You are a nothing in the field of Climate Science. Nobody is going to listen to your unsupported nonsense.
 
Media_Truth said:
Show your link!!!! You never do. You are a nothing in the field of Climate Science. Nobody is going to listen to your unsupported nonsense.
Click to expand...

How would a link help you? You obviously need to start by learning what significant digits mean in math.
 
Threegoofs said:
I saw this tweet today, written by one of the lead authors of the IPCC WG1, and laughed.

I’m guessing the ‘old dude who was an engineer in an unrelated field’ phenomenon extends much farther than LoP and Longview. Must be a specific conservative/libertarian pathology combined with engineering training

Twitter
Click to expand...


another insufferably pompous arrogant liberal who thinks she knows evvvvvvvvvery thing because she's in the clique.

#Vomit
 
KLATTU said:
another insufferably pompous arrogant liberal who thinks she knows evvvvvvvvvery thing because she's in the clique.

#Vomit
Click to expand...

another insufferably pompous arrogant conservative DP poster who thinks he knows evvvvvvvvvery thing because he’s not in the clique.

#Vomit
 
Lord of Planar said:
How would a link help you? You obviously need to start by learning what significant digits mean in math.
Click to expand...

Deflection --- you said the models are off by over 50%. Show your link. Otherwise we'll just assume that all your posts are nothing but B*.
 
Media_Truth said:
Deflection --- you said the models are off by over 50%. Show your link. Otherwise we'll just assume that all your posts are nothing but B*.
Click to expand...

The Five Questions Global Warming Policy Must Answer

December 18th, 2018

In the last 40 years, the discrepancy between models and observations for the globally-averaged lower atmosphere looks like this:

The discrepancy in the surface temperatures is less dramatic, but growing:

How can such models, which are increasingly portrayed as accurate, be defended with a straight face for energy policy decisions? The amount of warming they produce is not based upon physical first principles, as is often claimed. That some warming should occur is based upon fairly solid principles, but the amount of warming from increasing CO2 is entirely debatable.
The dirty little secret is that the models are tuned so that only increasing CO2 causes warming, since the various uncertain sources of natural climate change are either not known well enough to include, or are purposely programmed out of the models. (How do I know? Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2, rather than on Mother Nature. Those natural energy flows in the models are simply forced to be in balance, and so the cause of model warming ends up being anthropogenic. Thus the models use circular reasoning to establish human causation.)
 
Jack Hays said:
The Five Questions Global Warming Policy Must Answer

December 18th, 2018

In the last 40 years, the discrepancy between models and observations for the globally-averaged lower atmosphere looks like this:

The discrepancy in the surface temperatures is less dramatic, but growing:

How can such models, which are increasingly portrayed as accurate, be defended with a straight face for energy policy decisions? The amount of warming they produce is not based upon physical first principles, as is often claimed. That some warming should occur is based upon fairly solid principles, but the amount of warming from increasing CO2 is entirely debatable.
The dirty little secret is that the models are tuned so that only increasing CO2 causes warming, since the various uncertain sources of natural climate change are either not known well enough to include, or are purposely programmed out of the models. (How do I know? Because NONE of the natural energy flows in and out of the climate system are known to the accuracy [about 1%] needed to blame recent warming on increasing CO2, rather than on Mother Nature. Those natural energy flows in the models are simply forced to be in balance, and so the cause of model warming ends up being anthropogenic. Thus the models use circular reasoning to establish human causation.)
Click to expand...

Roy Spencer is not a major Scientific Organization. Should we take a single person's word, over the thousands of Climatologists around the world.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations.
 
Media_Truth said:
Roy Spencer is not a major Scientific Organization. Should we take a single person's word, over the thousands of Climatologists around the world.

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/

Confidence in these models is based, in part, on how well they reproduce these observed changes. Climate models have proven remarkably accurate in simulating the climate change we have experienced to date, particularly in the past 60 years or so when we have greater confidence in observations.
Click to expand...

Feel free to critique the work. I'm not interested in an opinion poll.

A Test of the Tropical 200-300 mb Warming Rate in Climate Models

Posted on September 17, 2018 by curryja | 250 comments
by Ross McKitrick I sat down to write a description of my new paper with John Christy, but when I looked up a reference via Google Scholar something odd cropped up that requires a brief digression.

Summarizing, all 102 CMIP5 model runs warm faster than observations, in most individual cases the discrepancy is significant, and on average the discrepancy is significant. The test of trend equivalence rejects whether or not we include a break at 1979, though the rejections are stronger when we control for its influence. Measures of series divergence are centered at a positive mean and the entire distribution is above zero. While the observed analogue exhibits a warming trend over the test interval it is significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly.
To the extent GCMs are getting some features of the surface climate correct as a result of their current tuning, they are doing so with a flawed structure. If tuning to the surface added empirical precision to a valid physical representation, we would expect to see a good fit between models and observations at the point where the models predict the clearest and strongest thermodynamic response to greenhouse gases. Instead we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic. Our interpretation of the results is that the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely the theoretically-based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is flawed.
Paper:


 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
Feel free to critique the work. I'm not interested in an opinion poll.

A Test of the Tropical 200-300 mb Warming Rate in Climate Models

[FONT=&]Posted on September 17, 2018 by curryja | 250 comments[/FONT]
by Ross McKitrick I sat down to write a description of my new paper with John Christy, but when I looked up a reference via Google Scholar something odd cropped up that requires a brief digression.

Summarizing, all 102 CMIP5 model runs warm faster than observations, in most individual cases the discrepancy is significant, and on average the discrepancy is significant. The test of trend equivalence rejects whether or not we include a break at 1979, though the rejections are stronger when we control for its influence. Measures of series divergence are centered at a positive mean and the entire distribution is above zero. While the observed analogue exhibits a warming trend over the test interval it is significantly smaller than that shown in models, and the difference is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that models represent it correctly.
To the extent GCMs are getting some features of the surface climate correct as a result of their current tuning, they are doing so with a flawed structure. If tuning to the surface added empirical precision to a valid physical representation, we would expect to see a good fit between models and observations at the point where the models predict the clearest and strongest thermodynamic response to greenhouse gases. Instead we observe a discrepancy across all runs of all models, taking the form of a warming bias at a sufficiently strong rate as to reject the hypothesis that the models are realistic. Our interpretation of the results is that the major hypothesis in contemporary climate models, namely the theoretically-based negative lapse rate feedback response to increasing greenhouse gases in the tropical troposphere, is flawed.
Paper:
Click to expand...

Oh but you are interested in an opinion poll - an opinion poll of one. And not the opinion of the thousands.
 
Media_Truth said:
Oh but you are interested in an opinion poll - an opinion poll of one. And not the opinion of the thousands.
Click to expand...

. . . But it isn’t arguments or votes or opinion that herald the acceptance of a scientific explanation: it’s the evidence. Follow it wherever it leads.

[h=3]Science Is Not A Democracy, And Can Never Be One - Forbes[/h]
[url]https://www.forbes.com/sites/.../science-is-not-a-democracy-and-can-never-be-one/
[/URL]



May 6, 2016 - Science Is Not A Democracy, And Can Never Be One. Science The Universe is out there, waiting for you to discover it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom